From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 21 18:13:56 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C65BB31;
 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:13:56 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22f.google.com (mail-qa0-x22f.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22f])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02622EE3;
 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:13:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id o19so590459qap.6
 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=W1PvSYU1kuOgHbE/Mvknjm1VwIOHOprsKTWOmjkEx84=;
 b=kHDWztZZXoyU1HXd4mzOOlvYsMU15+xD90s7DZYjidj9SKsJBuZ0JuVSgbXLYJ2fvK
 0HhWF6MhzXvQ2qTSEBSJ2rdhmL93ojF6Cvnot87VGoKfWSQ/yMQjFUDKWB4pgGBweOOi
 +SVk3tbyNnlqZQ3N0e+oBaXsMk1+uo5eh84EWOxToQlRudhfJE9AWBDmkXCgn7sXbfy1
 eRIUBpqyuUa7C7qrZcg+RF//f+eCQuLGRmCve69NHiP/TPdQu3h8SrAfoyJ5fkhLSyGF
 88XJcof4FIFTm0pa6nFrfwnqqbbfQJK9WlYnkccfpocc0Mzt/EvoR3zJnHb6m+XFEZXu
 7qBA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.23.134 with SMTP id r6mr12317407qab.34.1377108834807;
 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: asomers@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.39.101 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:13:54 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: x2ecm5iLbXtvTvm0IdKz4JNWdQk
Message-ID: <CAOtMX2jdhy8B48nXyZWs0GTFN2XhO65nUHUghV7+Nry=Ckm04g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CFR: FIB handling improvements
From: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>
To: "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Will Andrews <will@firepipe.net>,
 "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:13:56 -0000

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Sam Fourman Jr. <sfourman@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> * Use of dhclient with non-zero FIBs.  With this patch, it is possible
>
>> to use DHCP on a specific interface with a non-zero FIB and have it
>> work correctly with this rc.conf snippet:
>>
>> ifconfig_em1="SYNCDHCP"
>> dhclient_fib_em1=1
>>
>
> This patch is needed, I have a situation where we have
> 2 internet providers, one is a static ip set in rc.conf, the other
> provider forces
> the use of DHCP, but trying to use the "DHCP" connection only for a
> "Backup"
> caused the problem of the primary gateway being overwritten on fib0 (the
> static)
> I tried to solve it by the following in /etc/rc.local:
>
> /usr/sbin/setfib 1 /sbin/dhclient re2
> setfib 0 route delete default
> setfib 1 route delete default
> setfib 1 route add default 99.55.240.1
> setfib 0 route add default 75.133.75.193
>
> this sorta works, but in practice after several hours (not sure why)
> all of the traffic on the machine tries to use the gateway of FIB1.
> this problem ONLY shows up when the use of DHCP is in the mix.
>
>
> So my question is twofold, is my situation what this patch is supposed to
> fix?
> or did I simply find a bug in the interface code? that will sort of eludes
> to
>
> Thank you for your work
> --
>
> Sam Fourman Jr.
>

Yes, this patch will probably fix your problem.  We regularly configure
machines with static on igb0, dynamic on igb1, and separate gateways for
each.